LOL He said “moderate Washington Post”! LMMFAO!!
And that, ladies and gentlemen, sums up the differences between us perfectly!
Here’s an article from the Washington Post. It ranks ITSELF as Liberal!
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Does that poet who lived over a hundred years ago have a monopoly on our current immigration policy?
[/quote]
They don’t, but neither do people who want to close the borders.[/quote]
Nice Strawman!
Typical, liberal argument is typical. Where have I said “close the borders”? Where has ANYONE said “close the borders”?
Obama is the one violating his duty to uphold the law of the land by IGNORING existing immigration law. With his pen and his phone, he is doing all kinds of extra-Constitutional activities, effectively bypassing congress in the process.
At the moment, it is OBAMA who effectively has an unconstitutional monopoly on immigration policy. His policies have failed two court challenges so far and is on the way to the Supreme Court.
But we all know that the only thing Obama is interested in is pandering to new potential voters who he assumes will eventually vote Democrat.
Now back to Syria. We have NO WAY to vet them. I’ve posted a link from last month of the FBI director saying so. So far, no one has addressed that link. So perhaps you can answer me this:
Who is more qualified to have an educated opinion on our ability to EFFECTIVELY screen potential Syrian refugees? The director of the FBI? Or You and Bismark?
I’ll bet you don’t even bother to address this question because that’s what you Libtards do, you ignore things that are logically driven and make emotional arguments, appeals and straw men arguments that have no grounding in reality.
[/quote]
So Obama has a monopoly on immigration… how does that contradict what I said?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Does that poet who lived over a hundred years ago have a monopoly on our current immigration policy?
[/quote]
They don’t, but neither do people who want to close the borders.[/quote]
Nice Strawman!
Typical, liberal argument is typical. Where have I said “close the borders”? Where has ANYONE said “close the borders”?
Obama is the one violating his duty to uphold the law of the land by IGNORING existing immigration law. With his pen and his phone, he is doing all kinds of extra-Constitutional activities, effectively bypassing congress in the process.
At the moment, it is OBAMA who effectively has an unconstitutional monopoly on immigration policy. His policies have failed two court challenges so far and is on the way to the Supreme Court.
But we all know that the only thing Obama is interested in is pandering to new potential voters who he assumes will eventually vote Democrat.
Now back to Syria. We have NO WAY to vet them. I’ve posted a link from last month of the FBI director saying so. So far, no one has addressed that link. So perhaps you can answer me this:
Who is more qualified to have an educated opinion on our ability to EFFECTIVELY screen potential Syrian refugees? The director of the FBI? Or You and Bismark?
I’ll bet you don’t even bother to address this question because that’s what you Libtards do, you ignore things that are logically driven and make emotional arguments, appeals and straw men arguments that have no grounding in reality.
[/quote]
So Obama has a monopoly on immigration… how does that contradict what I said?
[/quote]
How about you reply to me with more than one sentence. MmmmKay?
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Does that poet who lived over a hundred years ago have a monopoly on our current immigration policy?
[/quote]
They don’t, but neither do people who want to close the borders.[/quote]
Nice Strawman!
Typical, liberal argument is typical. Where have I said “close the borders”? Where has ANYONE said “close the borders”?
Obama is the one violating his duty to uphold the law of the land by IGNORING existing immigration law. With his pen and his phone, he is doing all kinds of extra-Constitutional activities, effectively bypassing congress in the process.
At the moment, it is OBAMA who effectively has an unconstitutional monopoly on immigration policy. His policies have failed two court challenges so far and is on the way to the Supreme Court.
But we all know that the only thing Obama is interested in is pandering to new potential voters who he assumes will eventually vote Democrat.
Now back to Syria. We have NO WAY to vet them. I’ve posted a link from last month of the FBI director saying so. So far, no one has addressed that link. So perhaps you can answer me this:
Who is more qualified to have an educated opinion on our ability to EFFECTIVELY screen potential Syrian refugees? The director of the FBI? Or You and Bismark?
I’ll bet you don’t even bother to address this question because that’s what you Libtards do, you ignore things that are logically driven and make emotional arguments, appeals and straw men arguments that have no grounding in reality.
[/quote]
So Obama has a monopoly on immigration… how does that contradict what I said?
[/quote]
How about you reply to me with more than one sentence. MmmmKay?[/quote]
What am I supposed to say? You went off on this big Obama rant bashing liberals that had little to do with what I said. I get it, your not a fan of him but guess who is more qualified to have an educated opinion, The President, a poet from 100 years ago, or You?
[quote]Bismark wrote:
I have, ad nauseum, only to be subjected to personal attacks. Case in point . . .
Idealistic little prick? Classy. I’m a realist, not an idealist. One who happens to have a rudimentary basics of international relations in general and security policy in particular. Your off base insults toward a stranger you know nothing about don’t change the fact that you aren’t even a dilettante in this regard, in spite of you fulfilling your inherent biological potential and fathering children. I’m not going to waste my time with a “grown-up” who devolves to such childish personal attacks because he lacks the intellectual capacity and tempernent to respectfully engage in a substantial debate of a controversial subject. I’d be delighted if you proved me wrong.
[/quote]
Is lying with the purpose of trying to win on a point respectfully engaging? No, it’s being a dick. In good faith I took your word that all the Paris attackers were French Nationals but after you lied about the percent of refugees who are young men I decided to fact check that and it turns out you were lying about that one too. At least one of those attackers snuck in with a fake passport pretending to be a refugee. That’s at least two lies. That makes you a dick.
Basic understanding of statistics, heck, just good common sense, is all you need to know the refugees are a threat but now it is a PROVEN FACT.
That fact doesn’t sit well with you idealism so you had to lie about it. This doesn’t prove you’re an idealist but it sure proves your not a realist. Quite simply if you have to lie about information you are not a realist.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Left wing propaganda? State Department figures? A article written for the moderate Washington Post by a constitutional law scholar that also employed at a conservative think tank dedicated to individual liberty, limited government, and free markets? An article written on a highly reputable foreign policy and national security platform that explicitly analyzes international affairs though a Realist lens, written by a defense wonk with deep, direct experience in national security? Are they left wing propaganda because they don’t align with your parochial and preconceived Weltanschauung? Good luck actually addressing the cogent arguments they present.
[/quote]
Yes they are propaganda. We’ve been presented with a video of a CIA head honcho explaining we can’t possibly properly vet 10,000 refugees and we have our own common sense. After all, the number is TEN THOUSAND. How could we possibly properly vet all those people?
The Obama administration has their agenda and people objecting to letting those refugees in is in opposition to that agenda so they produce this PROPAGANDA in a effort reduce the objection. If you think the Obma administration is above this type of propaganda tactic, it’s just more proof you’re no realist.
Bud, I just checked your hub. It says you’re 68 years old. Do you tell the truth about anything or is lying just habitual for you?
If all of these analysts and political scientists analysis and recomendations are so rock solid, why are we in such a protracted blown up fucking mess that just keeps getting worse?
but they’re women and children, what’s the risk?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
If all of these analysts and political scientists analysis and recomendations are so rock solid, why are we in such a protracted blown up fucking mess that just keeps getting worse?
[/quote]
Because most of us don’t believe them…and that is some serious negative energy being transmitted, man.[/quote]
I just figured relevant intel would be highly classified, and anything being broadly disseminated or opined upon by journalist/analysts was just irrelevant junk.
So you’re right!
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Aggv wrote:
but they’re women and children, what’s the risk? [/quote]
None. Bam’s assurances are good enough for me. He’s never lied to us before.[/quote]
At least you get to keep your doctor![/quote]
Oh don’t even get me started. Ever since the first phase of obamacare was implemented my medical costs have skyrocketed. Between the rising deductibles, lower percentage of coverage, and increased price of the policies itself my medical costs have risen at least, AT LEAST 400%; I am being conservative with that estimate. I believe it’s more, but I do not want to exaggerate the claims.
My finances have taken a huge hit because of medical costs.
I am betting kneedragger feels my pain because he as well as I have chronic conditions that need constant care. Obamacare is a flat disaster.
This should come as no surprise, but the administration definitely deliberately underestimated ISIS.
“We have not contained ISIS”
- Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
[quote]pat wrote:
Ever since the first phase of obamacare was implemented my medical costs have skyrocketed. Between the rising deductibles, lower percentage of coverage, and increased price of the policies itself my medical costs have risen at least, AT LEAST 400% …My finances have taken a huge hit because of medical costs.
[/quote]
I hear ya brother, I know a ton of people who lost full time jobs or can no longer be hired as full time employees, or had their hours cut because the places they work do not want to pay them health care. Obamacare has ruined a lot of people, just like housing bust under Bush, but no one will admit it.